Sense and Sensibility: An Ironic Expose on the Economics of Marriage Sense and Sensibility is the second novel written by Jane Austen and the first to be pub- lished. It is full of satiric wit, and for this reason is often grouped with the Juvenilia and Northanger Abbey as an immature effort that Austen made before finding her true literary voice. Irony, however, makes it easier to pinpoint Austen’s feelings on social customs. In addition, her irony is entertaining, often making the first books in her canon the most beloved by her audience.

Ian Watt describes the use of irony in this novel as “the means whereby Jane Austen shocks us into seeing the disparity between proper norms of con- duct and the actualities of human behavior” (Watt, 47). For the marriage plot in particular, Austen uses irony to show that while marital customs may have been established with the intent of protecting women, the actualities of the system are often more harmful than helpful. This satiric humor entrances audiences because it points out undeniable truths and provides a laugh along the way. Austen wastes no time in introducing her ironic voice in Sense and Sensibility.

The first chapter acquaints the audience with the full financial situation of the Dashwood Pursuit: The Journal of Undergraduate Research at the University of Tennessee 8 EbERlE [Vol. 3:1 family. This introduction rubs uncomfortably as one wonders at the intimacy of such infor- mation being revealed so soon; Austen, however, realizes that there is no reason to wait. The truth of the matter is that the Dashwood women have no fortune to rely on, and their brother, who “was not an ill-disposed young man, unless to be rather cold hearted, and rather selfish, is to be ill-disposed,” will not be providing for them (4).

Austen does away with formalities and discloses the truths immediately: the Dashwoods need somewhere to live, but society has made it impossible to secure housing without a male representative. She does not comment on the situation in an outraged tone, but rather reports these facts as the natural order. However, an educated audience sees the irony here: the natural order is nothing short of outrageous. Why should having a father with little inheritance and a brother with narcissistic tendencies make the Dashwood women into social pariahs?

The ideology of the women’s sphere is based on safety in the home for the female, but for the Dashwood women this has obviously proven false. Their sole protector has left them in poverty, and the brother who should be next in line to care for them has made them visitors in their own house. Instead of being a place of safety, the home has become a fearful place that the Dashwoods long to leave. Fortunately for them, male cousin Sir John Middleton intervenes by providing them with lodging on his estate. Even this help comes only by accident, out of the exuberance of Sir John’s character, rather than from purposeful male protection.

Despite whether the reader approaches the novel from a critical or pleasure per- spective, she is aware that the economic troubles of the Dashwoods are well-grounded in reality. John Dashwood’s failure to provide is intriguing from a critical perspective because he is a window into the clash between expected and actual male roles in the 18th century. Pleasure readers will also recognize the failings of John Dashwood because he negates the natural order that should occur in the romantic fairy-tale world.

From the beginning, an at- tentive audience cannot miss the ironic cultural messages about the failure of the domestic sphere to protect women in an economically driven world. As the story continues, economic realities presented in the beginning are compli- cated by the addition of marriage. As in all Austen plots, she introduces heroes (both false and true) and her heroines struggle to negotiate the stormy waters of romance. In Sense and Sensibility, however, this formula takes on another facet through the character of Mrs.

Jennings. As a wealthy widow, Mrs. Jennings holds the unique position of being both female and independent. Because of her status she is able to get away with saying things that other characters cannot, providing the inappropriate yet all-too-true commentary of an experienced woman and mother. Indeed, as she has already seen both of her daughters married, her remaining goal is “to marry all the rest of the world” (28). Along with Sir John Middleton, Mrs. Jennings likes to poke fun at the Dashwood girls and their beaux.

They tell the girls that certain men are “well worth catching” or setting their “cap at” (34, 35). And anyone will do, provided he has the proper resume. While Marianne lives out the plot in her own romantic world, convinced that she is in love with Willoughby after only a week together, Mrs. Jennings points out the realities that are more likely to dictate marital unions. In her uncouth way, Mrs. Jennings tells her friends that she “never was very hand- some – worse luck for me. ” She did manage to secure a good husband, however, which is what really matters in the end (121-122).

In addition, she knows that a match between Marianne and Colonel Brandon would be worthwhile because “he was rich and she was handsome” (28). Mrs. Jennings’ pragmatism illustrates the ideology that controls marriage, even as she helps the process along. In a society where the crass economics of marriage are hushed up or outright ignored, Mrs. Jennings introduces a refreshing change by saying what everyone thinks but refuses to address. Her voice highlights the inner workings of Pursuit: The Journal of Undergraduate Research at the University of Tennessee 2011] Jane Austen 9 arriage arrangements, but at the same time she finds joy in the process. Her disinterested take allows her to see the realities of marriage clearly, and she diffuses economic tensions by acknowledging them in her approach. For Mrs. Jennings, the inevitability of matches like Marianne and Colonel Brandon endorse the economic status quo. The fairy tale ending is economically predetermined and ideologically loaded. As the novel closes, Edward makes the “right” decision by marrying Elinor for love while Willoughby, who picks money, regrets the loss of Marianne.

Marrying for money is a common theme in the Austen canon, and Sense and Sensibility is no exception. Mrs. Ferrars wants Edward to marry Miss Morton, who comes from a wealthy family and is the daughter of a Lord. In the same way, Willoughby chooses money over love when he mar- ries Miss Grey, who is said to have 50,000 pounds. Although the audience may secretly want Willoughby to suffer from his bad decision forever, it is not only the love story that draws readers. Austen is famous for mixing the romance with reality, and the ending of Sense and Sensibility does not disappoint.

Rather than dying of a broken heart, Willoughby “lived to exert, and frequently to enjoy himself” (289). Reality also presents itself in the conclusion of Elinor and Edward’s marriage. Although they are truly happy, they are not “quite enough in love to think that three hundred and fifty pounds a-year would supply them with the comforts of life” (280). Eventually a change of heart in Mrs. Ferrars allows them to marry under more agreeable economic circumstances, but the message is not to be forgotten. Even in the ideal marriage of two people completely in love – here Elinor and Edward – money is a determining factor.

In a culture where marriages are based on riches rather than love or compatibility, it is only natural that people become less like individuals and more like objects. Austen criti- cizes this social norm through the theme of interchangeability. When people are used as a means to an end, the actual person ceases to matter and the goal becomes the determining factor. An obvious example of this is Lucy Steele. She wants to marry an eldest son, so she attaches herself to Edward in a secret engagement. However, when the truth about their en- gagement is discovered, Mrs.

Ferrars refuses to give Edward the money she would normal- ly bestow on her oldest son. This is of little consequence to Lucy, who simply exchanges Edward for the now favored Robert Ferrars. She writes to Edward that “as [Robert and I] could not live without one another, we are just returned from the altar, and are now on our way to Dawlish… but thought I would first trouble you with these few lines… ” (277). This over-the-top letter illuminates how ridiculous the exchange of the brothers really is. The switch seems so natural to Lucy that it does not even occur to her to tell Edward until after she is married to Robert.

Romantic readers see Lucy’s actions as ludicrous because she treats marriage, which idealistically should be the most disinterested relationship, as a mer- cenary exchange. She manipulates the factors of the marriage relationship to receive the maximum benefit for herself, thereby distressing the heart of the fairy-tale loving reader to no end. From a critical perspective, Lucy is also a subject of interest because her motives deviate from the expected romantic female approach to marriage. This deviation is not a forward progression, however, but a move into dangerous territory for the institution of marriage.

Her actions convict her, and thereby anyone approaching marriage as an inter- changeable transaction, of going against the natural order of Austen’s world. In this way, Lucy manages to appall the audience regardless of the reader’s approach. Because she sees the Ferrars brothers merely as objects that will provide her with money and power, it is not important that she treat them with respect or even as individuals. In the end, Edward and the audience are grateful for Lucy’s behavior because it releases him to marry Elinor.

Lucy does not seem to deserve Edward because she is cruel and incapable of love. The two Pursuit: The Journal of Undergraduate Research at the University of Tennessee 10 EbERlE [Vol. 3:1 Lucy’s exchange of Edward for Robert is extreme enough to seem ridiculous, but it opens the conversation on deeper cultural questions about reasons for marriage. If mar- riage is just a “commercial exchange,” as feared by Marianne, then this brotherly substitu- tion should not bother the audience (29). Lucy should instead be seen as a normal young woman hoping for a good home.

Austen’s satire, however, shows her to be foolish and power-hungry, or the opposite of what the audience should strive for in their own lives. While Sense and Sensibility is one of Austen’s early novels, the extensive use of satire and irony does not alienate her audience but instead drives home the problems of marriage as a commercial market. The ridiculous situations and observations of characters throughout the novel emphasize the gap between social customs and the ideal marriage. Both the criti- cal reader and the pleasure reader experience the same gap, even if they describe or analyze it through different methodologies.

Critics will be familiar with the social norms of the 18th century, so the differences square with a more comprehensive social critique as read- ing progresses. While the pleasure reader may not have the same extensive background, her more optimistic or idealized notions about the nature of marriage will be offended by the differences between the ideal and the real conditions of life in Sense and Sensibility. Ironically, the widening gap between social norms and idyllic marriages serves to close the gap that some say exists between critical and pleasure readers.

Author: Brandon Johnson

Related Posts

The average student has to read dozens of books per year. No one has time to read them all, but it’s important to go over them at least briefly. Luckily, FreeBookSummary offers study guides on over 1000 top books from students’ curricula!